Ron Paul is alright... but he have some fucked up ideas...
I think Obama is the best candidate actually... Although I know that a lot of people out there do not share my view...!

I'm voting for him, if for no other reason than CPUSA endorsing him.

That, dear friend, is because Ron Paul is an Austrian laissez faire advocate, and, Laissez Faire, as anyone can tell you, doesn't work at all, never mind Austrianism. I suppose that the Communist Party of the United States of America is supporting him because his lack of OEconomic understanding would sink America into the abyss, and the citizen will then turn to them for Revolution.

Technically, no. We are still feeling the after-shocks, but a recession is two consecutive quarters of declining GDP; GDP increased last quarter, so by definition we cannot be in a recession.

That said, this is referring to a term specifically used by Market-capitalist macro-economists. A Marxist understanding of overproduction and unemployment, as relates to our current situation, is not nearly as rosy.

Ron Paul is alright... but he have some fucked up ideas...
I think Obama is the best candidate actually... Although I know that a lot of people out there do not share my view...!

I'm voting for him, if for no other reason than CPUSA endorsing him.

That, dear friend, is because Ron Paul is an Austrian laissez faire advocate, and, Laissez Faire, as anyone can tell you, doesn't work at all, never mind Austrianism. I suppose that the Communist Party of the United States of America is supporting him because his lack of OEconomic understanding would sink America into the abyss, and the citizen will then turn to them for Revolution.

No, you misunderstand. CPUSA is endorsing *Obama*

And Obama is much worse than Ron Paul- at least there is something to commend Ron Paul on, namely, his foriegn policy and his civil libertarian tendencies. Obama...as far as I can see, there is nothing commendable at all.

Technically, no. We are still feeling the after-shocks, but a recession is two consecutive quarters of declining GDP; GDP increased last quarter, so by definition we cannot be in a recession.

That said, this is referring to a term specifically used by Market-capitalist macro-economists. A Marxist understanding of overproduction and unemployment, as relates to our current situation, is not nearly as rosy.

Technically, we're out of an recession since 2009, in reality, our debt is rising, our unemployment is still about 9%, our Economy, inflation is still high...that is not a recovery by any measure.

Wages aren't stagnant. Lowering the minimum wage would allow for the lowering of wages in all employment, thereby increasing the employablity (is that even a word?) of the Labourers. What matter is not 'providing a decent wage' in this economy, but generating the most profit. By lowering minimum wage, not only are we employing people to labour, we are also allowing the Economy to take its natural course. There is something known as the Natural Rate of Unemployment in an economy, which the the percent of people who will, at any given time, be unemployed. In the short term, unemployment will decrease if you increase inflation, but it will always naturally fall onto the natural rate of unemployment, and, sometimes, it would go below that rate. By decreasing the price of labour, we are also decreasing the price of products, which would make our product once again competative. You say that this would create wage slaves and would destroy the middle class, that is completely untrue. I would cite historic examples of Laissez Faire Capitalism where the middle class actually grew in spite of Wage Slaves. That is because the Middle Class are link to the profit of the Corporations through stock, the more profitable the corporation, the more profitable the stocks, therefore, contrary to your claim, our middle class, who are usually investors as well, would profit from the lowering of minimum wages.

Hint: the economy will not take it's natural course if people aren't being paid a living wage. That's the part that you're distinctly ignoring. In addition, lowering the wage of workers might lower the price of the good, but it doesn't matter, because if people are too poor, they still won't be able to afford the good. Take a look at China - they have an increasing middle class, (this is not to say that they have a large middle class - they don't) but their middle class does not consist of the people that are being paid at lousy wages and living in their sweatshops. They make iPhones for well under our minimum wage and the people working for Foxconn are not even able to afford their own product. The people purchasing iPhones in China are the middle-class and wealthier people. Furthermore, take a look at a great deal of Asian countries. http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/06/13/asias-middle-class-on-the-rise/
They having a growing middle-class, and their economies are also growing, whereas our economy is shrinking. I can also provide examples of this as well.

That is because our wages are to high to be employed in such a way that would generate the most profit for the companies. We should lower taxes and get rid of the minimum wage for the Free Market will take its course.
Except that it hasn't. I can provide a link that would completely disagree with you.

War is an non-essential item, and is an item that wouldn't benefit the country, and Ron Paul is firmly against US intervention in other nations. Also, I said Europe, not Greece, which includes France, Britain, and other nations with imposition of Austerity.
Even with us being out of a war doesn't mean that those debts are going to magically disappear. Wars cost lots of money per day - just trying to set back the budget to 2004 levels isn't going to make the very real debts of 2005-2012 go away. Also, in European countries and their austerity measures, my statement still stands. People are rioting and protesting en masse in European countries and their austerity measures may very well put the rest of this world at risk for an economic recession.

No, one case does not invalidate my point. Virginia is a southern state that is known for racism and homophobia, and it proves my point, to the contrary, that, because we have several states such fundamentalists, we are better off letting the individual states decided than letting these state impose it upon the entire union.
No. And why would it work that way? Human rights are human rights - they're not to be negotiated. Also, Prop 8. States are not sovereign countries - we fought a war over this. States are under federal jurisdiction.

We are a merit based society, our economic system is founded upon meritocracy. Unless you want to say that we are inherently different, and some people need more help than others to succeed, you are basing it entirely upon a unfounded assumption that these people are inherently inferior. Affirmative action is discrimination, place and simple, Nepotism is bad, but it works, Affirmitive Action is Nepotism foisted upon colleges and companies by the government. You say that there is discriminatory hiring and requiting practices, I would like proof of that. Companies do not hire based upon race or sex but on qualifications, because a free market, as I say once, and say so again, allocate rescources in the most optimal manner, the expidiency of the owners of corporations would lead them to hire based upon what would lead to the greatest profit, etc. Even so, if they were sexist or racist, the government hoisting affirmative action would not change their nature, they still would do everything to chase the woman or the minority away. Racism is not about forcing races to live in harmony through government intervention, but education of the mass of people.

Actually, suffering the effects of racism doesn't make people inherently inferior. It means that the odds are completely stacked AGAINST you. Prime example for you - why it is that White Collar Crime is more serious than someone who takes drugs or smokes their own stash of weed, but one set of people are more likely to go to jail for extended sentences than the other. One is a crime that involves victims and another is victimless. Here's a hint - it's not those guilty of white collar crime. Why is this? Because drug use predominates with People of Color a lot more, due to social circumstances and selling drugs is more lucrative than working as a wage slave (fancy that, it flows right in with your first point) and can provide more of the means to live a middle class lifestyle. White Collar already consists of well-off white people. Even if those responsible couldn't afford better lawyers, they'll get less time than someone who was busted with their own drugs - and even more so if the judge adds 'intent to distribute'.

Also, do you not know what nepotism is? Affirmative Action does not qualify. Nepotism is considered to be a form of corruption. You've also contradicted yourself horribly. Are we a merit-based society or aren't we? If nepotism is considered to be 'good', then what would make affirmative action 'bad'? You're giving jobs to a wider array of people who are more qualified for their positions than someone who is the nephew of such and such company.

Also, PoC are more likely to spend the money that they receive and put it back into the economy than white people. White people are more likely to save/invest their money. By your logic of corporate gain that you've been stating all through here, it would actually make more sense to hire the people that are more likely to spend the money that they're paid.

Affirmative Action is not there to teach corporations and such. Racism has no place in hiring, education, or any other form in any fair, truly merit-based society, and our society is not. You can educate people as much as you want to, but people can still reject and revise what they've learned. People can also only be taught things from one point of view, and thusly, they have a slanted perspective. Education only works to a certain level and then it fails when people don't like it or when it conflicts too harshly with their values. These people can get into positions of power and use their 'education' (or lack thereof) in hiring, admissions, courts, etc. - which on their face should be neutral. Someone can get in and say "Oh, blacks are lazy, why should I hire someone who is lazy?" while ignoring that black person that isn't lazy and has all sorts of accolades and awards. They can say "Asians push the standard up too high and make it difficult for my kid to get a job/succeed," and they could potentially not hire them. (ever heard of the bamboo ceiling. It's why Asians are discriminated against in College Admissions) They could say "Women are too much of a risk because they spend too much time off on maternity leave" and refuse to hire women. In terms of capitalism, the person in HR would be a liability because resources are not being distributed in an optimal fashion.

By this standard- viz. that we are getting rid of a potential labourer, whose produce may have contributed to the general commonwealth and to the wealth of the nation, and the people therein. In short, we are losing an Automaton, a means of production.
And then again, possibly not, because they could be discriminated against for any reason.

Not according Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Jean Baptiste Say, James Mill, John Staurt Mill, Claude Frédéric Bastiat, et. al.
I know other people who would disagree, such as Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Noam Chomsky, Charles Fourier, etc.

It is for responsible and non-mentally unstable adults to carry, not for kids.
Did you also not read the name of the act he wants to eliminate? Gun Free Schools Act. A kid would be able to bring a gun to school and it would be legal - or an intruder would be able to come into the school with a gun, and the act of having the gun would be legal.

angrierchickwrote:
Hint: the economy will not take it's natural course if people aren't being paid a living wage. That's the part that you're distinctly ignoring. In addition, lowering the wage of workers might lower the price of the good, but it doesn't matter, because if people are too poor, they still won't be able to afford the good. Take a look at China - they have an increasing middle class, (this is not to say that they have a large middle class - they don't) but their middle class does not consist of the people that are being paid at lousy wages and living in their sweatshops. They make iPhones for well under our minimum wage and the people working for Foxconn are not even able to afford their own product. The people purchasing iPhones in China are the middle-class and wealthier people. Furthermore, take a look at a great deal of Asian countries. http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/06/13/asias-middle-class-on-the-rise/
They having a growing middle-class, and their economies are also growing, whereas our economy is shrinking. I can also provide examples of this as well.

....
Except that it hasn't. I can provide a link that would completely disagree with you.

Because of over-Regulation, with things like Minimum Wage laws. Here's some facts to consider- overseas companies must hire at significantly lower wages than Americans because the cost of transporting is so high, therefore, it was usually more profitable to pay more at home than pay less abroad. yet, because of our minimum wage law the reverse is true. It has become more profitable to make things abroad than at home because of our too high wages. Now, the natural course of the Market, you say, hasn't taken its course, which is my point, it isn't taking its course because of Government regulation. In addition, you say that lowering wages may, lower the price of goods, which would make our product competative- the company's interest is only in generating the most profit- pray, why would they set it above what anyone can afford? But, say you are right, people are somehow to poor to afford their own product- what about the world's market? Certainly we don't live in a Microcosm. Furthermore, you ignore the principle of an Capitalist Economy, viz. that all rescources shall be allocated optimally. A business would not do so daft as to price it above the reach of its customers, or pay its workers so little that he cannot afford sustenance and luxeries. You Captialist, it seems, is not so much a creature of Greed, but a creature of massive unlearnedness and stupidity.

angrierchickwrote:
Even with us being out of a war doesn't mean that those debts are going to magically disappear. Wars cost lots of money per day - just trying to set back the budget to 2004 levels isn't going to make the very real debts of 2005-2012 go away. Also, in European countries and their austerity measures, my statement still stands. People are rioting and protesting en masse in European countries and their austerity measures may very well put the rest of this world at risk for an economic recession.

No it won't, it will halt the continuation of the debt, and, hopefully, use our taxes to pay it back. No one is saying it is going to disappear, just that we are trying to stop our government from continuing to dig its own grave.

angrierchickwrote:
No. And why would it work that way? Human rights are human rights - they're not to be negotiated. Also, Prop 8. States are not sovereign countries - we fought a war over this. States are under federal jurisdiction.

It is better that human rights exist somewhere rather than no where. You would agree with that, would you not? The Federal Government has rarely ever been an agent of the greater good- a handful of instances, yes, but rarely. Most of the nation is extremely conservative, and would rather not have gay rights, would you rather not have it in certain places rather than nowhere? Also, we didn't fight any war over 'State Rights', we fought a war over 'Slavery'. The South used the federal government's Fugative Slave Act to catch slaves, while the indepedent local government of several Northern States ignored them. You honestly believe in the whole State rights bullocks?

angrierchickwrote:
Actually, suffering the effects of racism doesn't make people inherently inferior. It means that the odds are completely stacked AGAINST you. Prime example for you - why it is that White Collar Crime is more serious than someone who takes drugs or smokes their own stash of weed, but one set of people are more likely to go to jail for extended sentences than the other. One is a crime that involves victims and another is victimless. Here's a hint - it's not those guilty of white collar crime. Why is this? Because drug use predominates with People of Color a lot more, due to social circumstances and selling drugs is more lucrative than working as a wage slave (fancy that, it flows right in with your first point) and can provide more of the means to live a middle class lifestyle. White Collar already consists of well-off white people. Even if those responsible couldn't afford better lawyers, they'll get less time than someone who was busted with their own drugs - and even more so if the judge adds 'intent to distribute'.

No it doesn't- the effects of racism is not something to be done away with with the government's hoisting of forcing companies to hire not based upon merit, but upon race. You say that the middle class white collar workers are full of White folks- that is rubbish, complete and utter rubbish. One may be more likely to go to jail than the other, but I am not saying that our judicial system is not crooked, Affirmative action is. If anything, it only shows that society is prejudiced against poor folks- for, as you say, drug and poverty permeates all of society, not just race specific. I have a feeling you want this to be about race, when there is nothing to indicate that this is a race thing. There are poor white people doing 'poor people's drug' and there are rich black folks doing 'rich people's drug', there is nothing race specific about any of this.

angrierchickwrote:
Also, do you not know what nepotism is? Affirmative Action does not qualify. Nepotism is considered to be a form of corruption. You've also contradicted yourself horribly. Are we a merit-based society or aren't we? If nepotism is considered to be 'good', then what would make affirmative action 'bad'? You're giving jobs to a wider array of people who are more qualified for their positions than someone who is the nephew of such and such company.

Yes it does, it is when someone choose people based not upon merit, but upon connections. Nepotism is bad, I said that, and if you have any proof I said otherwise, show me. But my point is that Affimative Action is a type of Nepotism, in that the quality doesn't matter, so long as the person is of a historically discriminated group. Affirmative action also doesn't address Nepotism, as you use it, for they force companies to hire people that may not be at all qualified based upon Race, while leaving room for them to hire based upon connection. Affirmative Action is a form of discrimination, it presupposes an inferiority of a certain group, and seeks to address this supposed 'inferiority' by creating a lower standard. We are an egalitarian society, and a libertarian society. The only way to address discrimination is not by lowering standards, but through rearing.

angrierchickwrote:
Also, PoC are more likely to spend the money that they receive and put it back into the economy than white people. White people are more likely to save/invest their money. By your logic of corporate gain that you've been stating all through here, it would actually make more sense to hire the people that are more likely to spend the money that they're paid.

Citation needed, but, even so, consider what investing is. When you buy a share of a company, you giving a Company capital for whatever reason. By investing, you put your money into the economy, to start up business, to put it in established business, etc., all of which is good for the commonwealth. It may not be direct as purchasing, but it is still benefits the commonwealth overall. Beside, you must also consider that frugality is not race based, but class based. It isn't a black white thing, but a class thing.

angrierchickwrote:
Affirmative Action is not there to teach corporations and such. Racism has no place in hiring, education, or any other form in any fair, truly merit-based society, and our society is not. You can educate people as much as you want to, but people can still reject and revise what they've learned. People can also only be taught things from one point of view, and thusly, they have a slanted perspective. Education only works to a certain level and then it fails when people don't like it or when it conflicts too harshly with their values. These people can get into positions of power and use their 'education' (or lack thereof) in hiring, admissions, courts, etc. - which on their face should be neutral. Someone can get in and say "Oh, blacks are lazy, why should I hire someone who is lazy?" while ignoring that black person that isn't lazy and has all sorts of accolades and awards. They can say "Asians push the standard up too high and make it difficult for my kid to get a job/succeed," and they could potentially not hire them. (ever heard of the bamboo ceiling. It's why Asians are discriminated against in College Admissions) They could say "Women are too much of a risk because they spend too much time off on maternity leave" and refuse to hire women. In terms of capitalism, the person in HR would be a liability because resources are not being distributed in an optimal fashion.

What is the point of this? To show that Education can only go so far? That doesn't disprove my point, that Education goes further than any attempt at Affirmative Action ever will.

angrierchickwrote:
And then again, possibly not, because they could be discriminated against for any reason.

Or they may be lousy workers.

angrierchickwrote:
I know other people who would disagree, such as Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Noam Chomsky, Charles Fourier, etc.

And I know plenty of people who would agree that they are socialists, who are against Capitalism in general, and would like to see Socialism in its place. I will not dispute them, but say that they are probably not someone to consult for the workings of the Capitalist means of production, seeing as they are invested in trying to see it out.

angrierchickwrote:
Did you also not read the name of the act he wants to eliminate? Gun Free Schools Act. A kid would be able to bring a gun to school and it would be legal - or an intruder would be able to come into the school with a gun, and the act of having the gun would be legal.

You just like making shit up as you go along, don't you. Can a kid legally purchase a gun? Then how can he bring it to school? No, it is for responsible adults to carry guns in school ground.

Obama Took away are freedom, NDAA... Only Ron Paul took the time to fight against it....

So you tell me, people still willing to vote for this Obama?!? and if so why the hell would you!? I am for freedom, and bringing are soldiers home, and fixing are economy. the only\y person going to do that or even has a plan to do something about it is Ron Paul. (not any other republican.)

Obama Took away are freedom, NDAA... Only Ron Paul took the time to fight against it....

So you tell me, people still willing to vote for this Obama?!? and if so why the hell would you!? I am for freedom, and bringing are soldiers home, and fixing are economy. the only\y person going to do that or even has a plan to do something about it is Ron Paul. (not any other republican.)

Time to wake up and stop being manipulated by Fox News propaganda.

Yet, consider this- while such world view correctly sees that the world's in shambles, and that Obama has degraded to little more than Bush the third, it creates a Messiah out of Ron Paul, and adorns him an unlimited power to rectify, fills him with grace abounding, wrap him in aurelian sheets, and make a gilded calf to worship. This is the same enthusians when Obama first ran four years ago- Obama of Hope, of Change, of Dreams. Yet, nothing came out of it, crowned with the presidency, and with his imperial sceptre, he continued Bush's pencent for warring, at home, he continued the late Bush policy of 'bailing out' the Automotive and Banking industry, and he manage to fall short of all his promises. To invest Ron Paul with the same enthusiaism is to create another idol of worship, only to see it break apart when you see the man in action. And, forget now his more positive qualities, his civil libertarianism and his stautch opposition to the divers unjust American foriegn intervention, his Economic policy basically amount to Laissez Faire Capitalism, deregulation, and privatisation, exchanging the tyranny of the government to the tyranny of business, the tyranny of government is one which we, the people, have some, however small, measure of control, while the tyranny of business, the tyranny of Mammon worshippers, we do not, for these little tyrannies are not organised with any semblance of democracy, but with authoritarian schemes, the businessmen at the top who lords over the workers of the bottom like the ancient lords and serfs of old. There is no man running deserving of hero-worship, certainly not Obama, and most certainly not Ron Paul. We are left with only a list of contemptible and odious insects squirming to curry our favour to ignore us for the next four years.

Keep this firmly in mind, that all politicians are defenders and servants for the illusive and idealistic status quote. They're not futurists with a clear vision of what the job future will be, due to the ever changing reality through technological progress.

2 Billion Jobs to Disappear by 2030
... When I brought up the idea of 2 billion jobs disappearing (roughly 50% of all the jobs on the planet) it wasn’t intended as a doom and gloom outlook. Rather, it was intended as a wakeup call, letting the world know how quickly things are about to change, and letting academia know that much of the battle ahead will be taking place at their doorstep.

This is the changing future trend, as people becoming more and more depended on technology, so is our relationship and roles will change due to this power dynamics. We'll become servants of an otherwise autonomous system that requires no master, when it's the system that we designed will defend our lifestyles. Not a government that's no longer "of the people, by the people, and for the people".

You thought we were gods with our technology? Well even gods need jobs within a religious belief system. And our jobs, should we choose to accept it, is to survive progress by working smarter.

Keep this firmly in mind, that all politicians are defenders and servants for the illusive and idealistic status quote. They're not futurists with a clear vision of what the job future will be, due to the ever changing reality through technological progress.

2 Billion Jobs to Disappear by 2030
... When I brought up the idea of 2 billion jobs disappearing (roughly 50% of all the jobs on the planet) it wasn’t intended as a doom and gloom outlook. Rather, it was intended as a wakeup call, letting the world know how quickly things are about to change, and letting academia know that much of the battle ahead will be taking place at their doorstep.

This is the changing future trend, as people becoming more and more depended on technology, so is our relationship and roles will change due to this power dynamics. We'll become servants of an otherwise autonomous system that requires no master, when it's the system that we designed will defend our lifestyles. Not a government that's no longer "of the people, by the people, and for the people".

You thought we were gods with our technology? Well even gods need jobs within a religious belief system. And our jobs, should we choose to accept it, is to survive progress by working smarter.

You are very much like an Old Testament Prophet: You make a claim, as if it was revealed truth- with absolutely no evidence to support it. 'Behold,' you say, 'it shall rain brimstone, and there will be wailing and gnashing of teeths, and everyone will be just miserable.' Pray, why would we lose two billion jobs by 2030? How does technology make us bondsman, and, at the same time, godlike? What is this autonomous system that requires no masters? And what is the connection between everything you wrote, and the government?

Politicians, like all people, defy simple caricature. A quick perusal of any history books will show us that not all politicians all defenders of the status quo and, even among the conservatives and reactionaries, not all are so devote to it that they have become complete slaves to it. There has always been Politicians and Statesman who sided with reform, the Chartists, Supporters of Catholic Emancipation, Woman Suffrage, the Progressives, etc. There may be some amongst them that are futurists, some that are technophiles, and there may be some that aren't. But, even so, what is a futurist, but one who plays seer, one who looks upon the now, and puts all his hopes of future upon the certainty of his expectations flowering? But, no, you must have certainty, you put all your faith upon your own certainty, and treat your beliefs, on human nature, on the future, on everything, as if it were divine revelation.

You say that Technology makes men servile, in the same prophetic air of one annointed by God, with nothing to substantiate it, as if your own words is enough to make it ture. How does our modern technology, our computers, our cellphones, ipads, etc., what make these tools, fruit of the mind, and work of human hands, make us any more servile than any other tools? Certainly the Hammer doesn't make the Worksman a slave and the Mill makes a farmer a serf, nor does the Steam Engine bind the labourer into chains and, in like effect, the Hammer, Mill, and Steam Engine doesn't deify man. So it is with our modern Technology- that these tools should make us any more servile or any more deified than the Hammer, Mill, and Steam Engine is absurd, unless there is proof enough to show otherwise.

You conclude that we all must 'survive progress by working smarter', which matches even Nostradamus in vaugeness. What is 'working smarter', and what is this 'progress' we must survive, pray tell?

Keep this firmly in mind, that all politicians are defenders and servants for the illusive and idealistic status quote. They're not futurists with a clear vision of what the job future will be, due to the ever changing reality through technological progress.

2 Billion Jobs to Disappear by 2030
... When I brought up the idea of 2 billion jobs disappearing (roughly 50% of all the jobs on the planet) it wasn’t intended as a doom and gloom outlook. Rather, it was intended as a wakeup call, letting the world know how quickly things are about to change, and letting academia know that much of the battle ahead will be taking place at their doorstep.

This is the changing future trend, as people becoming more and more depended on technology, so is our relationship and roles will change due to this power dynamics. We'll become servants of an otherwise autonomous system that requires no master, when it's the system that we designed will defend our lifestyles. Not a government that's no longer "of the people, by the people, and for the people".

You thought we were gods with our technology? Well even gods need jobs within a religious belief system. And our jobs, should we choose to accept it, is to survive progress by working smarter.

You are very much like an Old Testament Prophet: You make a claim, as if it was revealed truth- with absolutely no evidence to support it. 'Behold,' you say, 'it shall rain brimstone, and there will be wailing and gnashing of teeths, and everyone will be just miserable.' Pray, why would we lose two billion jobs by 2030? How does technology make us bondsman, and, at the same time, godlike? What is this autonomous system that requires no masters? And what is the connection between everything you wrote, and the government?

Politicians, like all people, defy simple caricature. A quick perusal of any history books will show us that not all politicians all defenders of the status quo and, even among the conservatives and reactionaries, not all are so devote to it that they have become complete slaves to it. There has always been Politicians and Statesman who sided with reform, the Chartists, Supporters of Catholic Emancipation, Woman Suffrage, the Progressives, etc. There may be some amongst them that are futurists, some that are technophiles, and there may be some that aren't. But, even so, what is a futurist, but one who plays seer, one who looks upon the now, and puts all his hopes of future upon the certainty of his expectations flowering? But, no, you must have certainty, you put all your faith upon your own certainty, and treat your beliefs, on human nature, on the future, on everything, as if it were divine revelation.

You say that Technology makes men servile, in the same prophetic air of one annointed by God, with nothing to substantiate it, as if your own words is enough to make it ture. How does our modern technology, our computers, our cellphones, ipads, etc., what make these tools, fruit of the mind, and work of human hands, make us any more servile than any other tools? Certainly the Hammer doesn't make the Worksman a slave and the Mill makes a farmer a serf, nor does the Steam Engine bind the labourer into chains and, in like effect, the Hammer, Mill, and Steam Engine doesn't deify man. So it is with our modern Technology- that these tools should make us any more servile or any more deified than the Hammer, Mill, and Steam Engine is absurd, unless there is proof enough to show otherwise.

You conclude that we all must 'survive progress by working smarter', which matches even Nostradamus in vaugeness. What is 'working smarter', and what is this 'progress' we must survive, pray tell?

Does it offends you when I simply ignore your aggressiveness towards at my person, and go straight to the point that you intentionally ignored? Because you obviously didn't bother to read through what the futurist Thomas Frey has to say about his vision, even though I've already included his entire writing as a part of my argument through hyperlink.

What Thomas Frey envisioned about the future of jobs are nothing new by its essence, throughout our prehistory, it's the technology of our cultures which enables us to achieve greater productivity. Arts in the form of cave paintings couldn't exist without burned woods used as paint. Food processing and cultivation couldn't exist without struck down rocks into hand axes. More powerful tools were synthesized by replacing human labors with animal labors. We changed the very physical human living condition through technology and nothing else, changing lifestyles can't be achieved without the introduction of new and powerful technology, for better or worst. Because our own ideas are merely powerful conceptual tools, and that includes political and economical ideologies that were ill-conceived, but nonetheless with unintentional consequences. That's because not all of us were a part of the conceptual process, and yet the execution includes all of us, whether we like it or not. Even a designer can't make a perfect machine that doesn't breakdown, there's no room for improvement. And that too is a form of change, of progress.

Moreover, your argument deliberately excluded all Thomas Frey's analysis on the five industries that will loose the most jobs while creating less labor-intensive alternatives:

1.) Power Industry

Until now, the utility companies existed as a safe career path where little more than storm-related outages and an occasional rate increase would cause industry officials to raise their eyebrows.

Yet the public has become increasingly vocal about their concerns over long-term health and environmental issues relating to the current structure and disseminating methods of of the power industry, causing a number of ingenious minds to look for a better way of doing things.

Recently I was introduced to two solutions that seem predestined to start the proverbial row of dominoes to start falling. There are likely many more waiting in the wings, but these two capitalize on existing variances found in nature and are unusually elegant in the way they solve the problem of generating clean power at a low cost.

Both companies have asked me to keep quiet about their technology until they are a bit farther along, but I will at least explain the overarching ramifications.

I should emphasize that both technologies are intended to work inside the current utility company structure, so the changes will happen within the industry itself.

To begin with, these technologies will shift utilities around the world from national grids to micro grids that can be scaled from a single home to entire cities. The dirty power era will finally be over and the power lines that dangle menacingly over our neighborhoods, will begin to come down. All of them.

While the industry will go through a long-term shrinking trend, the immediate shift will cause many new jobs to be created.

Jobs Going Away

Power generation plants will begin to close down.
Coal plants will begin to close down.
Many railroad and transportation workers will no longer be needed.
Even wind farms, natural gas, and bio-fuel generators will begin to close down.
Ethanol plants will be phased out or repurposed.
Utility company engineers, gone.
Line repairmen, gone.

New Jobs Created

Manufacturing power generation units the size of ac units will go into full production.
Installation crews will begin to work around the clock.
The entire national grid will need to be taken down (a 20 year project). Much of it will be recycled and the recycling process alone will employ many thousands of people.
Micro-grid operations will open in every community requiring a new breed of engineers, managers, and regulators.
Many more.

2.) Automobile Transportation – Going Driverless

Over the next 10 years we will see the first wave of autonomous vehicles hit the roads, with some of the first inroads made by vehicles that deliver packages, groceries, and fast-mail envelopes.

The first wave of driverless vehicles will be luxury vehicles that allow you to kick back, listen to music, have a cup of coffee, stop wherever you need to along the way, stay productive in transit with connections to the Internet, make phone calls, and even watch a movie or two, for substantially less than the cost of today’s limos.

Driverless technology will initially require a driver, but it will quickly creep into everyday use much as airbags did. First as an expensive option for luxury cars, but eventually it will become a safety feature stipulated by the government.

The greatest benefits of this kind of automation won’t be realized until the driver’s hands are off the wheel. With over 2 million people involved in car accidents every year in the U.S., it won’t take long for legislators to be convinced that driverless cars are a substantially safer and more effective option.

The privilege of driving is about to be redefined.

Jobs Going Away

Taxi and limo drivers, gone.
Bus drivers, gone.
Truck drivers, gone.
Gas stations, parking lots, traffic cops, traffic courts, gone.
Fewer doctors and nurses will be needed to treat injuries.
Pizza (and other food) delivery drivers, gone.
Mail delivery drivers, gone.
FedEx and UPS delivery jobs, gone.
As people shift from owning their own vehicles to a transportation-on-demand system, the total number of vehicles manufactured will also begin to decline.

The OpenCourseware Movement took hold in 2001 when MIT started recording all their courses and making them available for free online. They currently have over 2080 courses available that have been downloaded 131 million times.

In 2004 the Khan Academy was started with a clear and concise way of teaching science and math. Today they offer over 2,400 courses that have been downloaded 116 million times.

Now, the 8,000 pound gorilla in the OpenCourseware space is Apple’s iTunes U. This platform offers over 500,000 courses from 1,000 universities that have been downloaded over 700 million times. Recently they also started moving into the K-12 space.

All of these courses are free for anyone to take. So how do colleges, that charge steep tuitions, compete with “free”?

As the OpenCourseware Movement has shown us, courses are becoming a commodity. Teachers only need to teach once, record it, and then move on to another topic or something else.

In the middle of all this we are transitioning from a teaching model to a learning model. Why do we need to wait for a teacher to take the stage in the front of the room when we can learn whatever is of interest to us at any moment?

Teaching requires experts. Learning only requires coaches.

With all of the assets in place, we are moving quickly into the new frontier of a teacherless education system.

Jobs Going Away

Teachers.
Trainers.
Professors.

New Jobs Created

Coaches.
Course designers.
Learning camps.

4.) 3D Printers

Unlike a machine shop that starts with a large piece of metal and carves away everything but the final piece, 3D printing is an object creation technology where the shape of the objects are formed through a process of building up layers of material until all of the details are in place.

The first commercial 3D printer was invented by Charles Hull in 1984, based on a technique called stereolithography.

Three-dimensional printing makes it as cheap to create single items as it is to produce thousands of items and thus undermines economies of scale. It may have as profound an impact on the world as the coming of the factory did during the Henry Ford era.

Jobs Going Away

If we can print our own clothes and they fit perfectly, clothing manufacturers and clothing retailers will quickly go away.
Similarly, if we can print our own shoes, shoe manufacturers and shoe retailers will cease to be relevant.
If we can print construction material, the lumber, rock, drywall, shingle, concrete, and various other construction industries will go away.

We are moving quickly past the robotic vacuum cleaner stage to far more complex machines.

The BigDog robot, shown above, is among the most impressive and potentially useful for troops in the immediate future–it’s being developed to act as an autonomous drone assistant that’ll carry gear for soldiers across rough battlefield terrain.

Nearly every physical task can conceivably be done by a robot at some point in the future.

Jobs Going Away

Fishing bots will replace fishermen.
Mining bots will replace miners.
Ag bots will replace farmers.
Inspection bots will replace human inspectors.
Warrior drones will replace soldiers.
Robots can pick up building material coming out of the 3D printer and begin building a house with it.

In these five industries alone there will be hundreds of millions of jobs disappearing. But many other sectors will also be affected.

Certainly there’s a downside to all this. The more technology we rely on, the more breaking points we’ll have in our lives.

Driverless drones can deliver people. These people can deliver bombs or illicit drugs as easily as pizza.

Robots that can build building can also destroy buildings.

All of this technology could make us fat, dumb, and lazy, and the problems we thought we were solving become far more complicated.

We are not well-equipped culturally and emotionally to have this much technology entering into our lives. There will be backlashes, “destroy the robots” or “damn the driverless car” campaigns with proposed legislation attempting to limit its influence.

At the same time, most of the jobs getting displaced are the low-level, low-skilled labor positions. Our challenge will be to upgrade our workforce to match the labor demand of the coming era. Although it won’t be an easy road ahead it will be one filled with amazing technology and huge potentials as the industries shift.(citation)

And his comment in bold was directed towards people like you, who just aren't emotionally and culturally smart enough to process all these changes. Case in point, you're still stuck on "hammers, mills, and steam engines".

Does it offends you when I simply ignore your aggressiveness towards at my person, and go straight to the point that you intentionally ignored? Because you obviously didn't bother to read through what the futurist Thomas Frey has to say about his vision, even though I've already included his entire writing as a part of my argument through hyperlink.

No, it doesn't offend me when you 'simply ignore [my] agressiveness towards at[sic] my person', though, paradoxically, by making this statement, you are not 'simply ignoring it' and 'going straight to the point', rather, you are giving it consideration by gloating about how you are going to ignore it. But, to answer that question, no, it doesn't offend me when you 'ignore [my] aggessiveness', rather, it offends me when you ignore any semblance of a reasoned argument for sensationalistic and unfounded statements and prophetic aphorisms. You did put up a quote from this fellow seer of yours, with prediction that we will lose two billion jobs by 2030, but, you never provided anything to give substance to any of your other statements. Regardless, you are right to chide me for ignoring your hyperlink.

What Thomas Frey envisioned about the future of jobs are nothing new by its essence, throughout our prehistory, it's the technology of our cultures which enables us to achieve greater productivity. Arts in the form of cave paintings couldn't exist without burned woods used as paint. Food processing and cultivation couldn't exist without struck down rocks into hand axes. More powerful tools were synthesized by replacing human labors with animal labors. We changed the very physical human living condition through technology and nothing else, changing lifestyles can't be achieved without the introduction of new and powerful technology, for better or worst. Because our own ideas are merely powerful conceptual tools, and that includes political and economical ideologies that were ill-conceived, but nonetheless with unintentional consequences. That's because not all of us were a part of the conceptual process, and yet the execution includes all of us, whether we like it or not. Even a designer can't make a perfect machine that doesn't breakdown, there's no room for improvement. And that too is a form of change, of progress.

Yes, we are agreed that Man can create tools and improve upon pre-existing tools. That is not the point of centention, the point was that you say that this somehow is supposed to lead us to becoming simultaneously servile and godlike, and make us lose jobs and what not. I am just eager to see why our modern tools should differ from previous tools, and drive everyone into an unemployed deified servitude.

Moreover, your argument deliberately excluded all Thomas Frey's analysis on the five industries that will loose the most jobs while creating less labor-intensive alternatives:

I guess we should see the valuable insight of the Prophet Thomas Frey:

1.) Power Industry

Until now, the utility companies existed as a safe career path where little more than storm-related outages and an occasional rate increase would cause industry officials to raise their eyebrows.

Yet the public has become increasingly vocal about their concerns over long-term health and environmental issues relating to the current structure and disseminating methods of of the power industry, causing a number of ingenious minds to look for a better way of doing things.

Recently I was introduced to two solutions that seem predestined to start the proverbial row of dominoes to start falling. There are likely many more waiting in the wings, but these two capitalize on existing variances found in nature and are unusually elegant in the way they solve the problem of generating clean power at a low cost.

Both companies have asked me to keep quiet about their technology until they are a bit farther along, but I will at least explain the overarching ramifications.

I should emphasize that both technologies are intended to work inside the current utility company structure, so the changes will happen within the industry itself.

To begin with, these technologies will shift utilities around the world from national grids to micro grids that can be scaled from a single home to entire cities. The dirty power era will finally be over and the power lines that dangle menacingly over our neighborhoods, will begin to come down. All of them.

While the industry will go through a long-term shrinking trend, the immediate shift will cause many new jobs to be created.

Jobs Going Away

Power generation plants will begin to close down.
Coal plants will begin to close down.
Many railroad and transportation workers will no longer be needed.
Even wind farms, natural gas, and bio-fuel generators will begin to close down.
Ethanol plants will be phased out or repurposed.
Utility company engineers, gone.
Line repairmen, gone.

New Jobs Created

Manufacturing power generation units the size of ac units will go into full production.
Installation crews will begin to work around the clock.
The entire national grid will need to be taken down (a 20 year project). Much of it will be recycled and the recycling process alone will employ many thousands of people.
Micro-grid operations will open in every community requiring a new breed of engineers, managers, and regulators.
Many more.

2.) Automobile Transportation – Going Driverless

Over the next 10 years we will see the first wave of autonomous vehicles hit the roads, with some of the first inroads made by vehicles that deliver packages, groceries, and fast-mail envelopes.

The first wave of driverless vehicles will be luxury vehicles that allow you to kick back, listen to music, have a cup of coffee, stop wherever you need to along the way, stay productive in transit with connections to the Internet, make phone calls, and even watch a movie or two, for substantially less than the cost of today’s limos.

Driverless technology will initially require a driver, but it will quickly creep into everyday use much as airbags did. First as an expensive option for luxury cars, but eventually it will become a safety feature stipulated by the government.

The greatest benefits of this kind of automation won’t be realized until the driver’s hands are off the wheel. With over 2 million people involved in car accidents every year in the U.S., it won’t take long for legislators to be convinced that driverless cars are a substantially safer and more effective option.

The privilege of driving is about to be redefined.

Jobs Going Away

Taxi and limo drivers, gone.
Bus drivers, gone.
Truck drivers, gone.
Gas stations, parking lots, traffic cops, traffic courts, gone.
Fewer doctors and nurses will be needed to treat injuries.
Pizza (and other food) delivery drivers, gone.
Mail delivery drivers, gone.
FedEx and UPS delivery jobs, gone.
As people shift from owning their own vehicles to a transportation-on-demand system, the total number of vehicles manufactured will also begin to decline.

Well, you seem to inherit his pechant for making absurd claims with absolutely nothing to substantiate them. Sloughing through this, all I could make of it is this- that he is privy to some secret technology, the minutest details of which he cannot release, and that absolutely no one knows about beside him and a few people, which will cause so and so to happen, because he predicts that this super secret uber-awesome technology will do that. There is little that distinguish his 'analysis' so far from a Church's testimonial.

The OpenCourseware Movement took hold in 2001 when MIT started recording all their courses and making them available for free online. They currently have over 2080 courses available that have been downloaded 131 million times.

In 2004 the Khan Academy was started with a clear and concise way of teaching science and math. Today they offer over 2,400 courses that have been downloaded 116 million times.

Now, the 8,000 pound gorilla in the OpenCourseware space is Apple’s iTunes U. This platform offers over 500,000 courses from 1,000 universities that have been downloaded over 700 million times. Recently they also started moving into the K-12 space.

All of these courses are free for anyone to take. So how do colleges, that charge steep tuitions, compete with “free”?

As the OpenCourseware Movement has shown us, courses are becoming a commodity. Teachers only need to teach once, record it, and then move on to another topic or something else.

In the middle of all this we are transitioning from a teaching model to a learning model. Why do we need to wait for a teacher to take the stage in the front of the room when we can learn whatever is of interest to us at any moment?

Teaching requires experts. Learning only requires coaches.

With all of the assets in place, we are moving quickly into the new frontier of a teacherless education system.

Jobs Going Away

Teachers.
Trainers.
Professors.

New Jobs Created

Coaches.
Course designers.
Learning camps.

Wonderful, teachers are made redundant by online classes, just as how they were made redundant by books.

Unlike a machine shop that starts with a large piece of metal and carves away everything but the final piece, 3D printing is an object creation technology where the shape of the objects are formed through a process of building up layers of material until all of the details are in place.

The first commercial 3D printer was invented by Charles Hull in 1984, based on a technique called stereolithography.

Three-dimensional printing makes it as cheap to create single items as it is to produce thousands of items and thus undermines economies of scale. It may have as profound an impact on the world as the coming of the factory did during the Henry Ford era.

Jobs Going Away

If we can print our own clothes and they fit perfectly, clothing manufacturers and clothing retailers will quickly go away.
Similarly, if we can print our own shoes, shoe manufacturers and shoe retailers will cease to be relevant.
If we can print construction material, the lumber, rock, drywall, shingle, concrete, and various other construction industries will go away.

We are moving quickly past the robotic vacuum cleaner stage to far more complex machines.

The BigDog robot, shown above, is among the most impressive and potentially useful for troops in the immediate future–it’s being developed to act as an autonomous drone assistant that’ll carry gear for soldiers across rough battlefield terrain.

Nearly every physical task can conceivably be done by a robot at some point in the future.

Jobs Going Away

Fishing bots will replace fishermen.
Mining bots will replace miners.
Ag bots will replace farmers.
Inspection bots will replace human inspectors.
Warrior drones will replace soldiers.
Robots can pick up building material coming out of the 3D printer and begin building a house with it.

You know, there is a reason why Humans are used for farming, fishing, mining, and all that, it is a little something called the brain. We could easily have a mechanised fishing ship programmed to go to the primest location, cast the net, draw it in, all that, but we don't, because we need human ingenuity to figure out what to do in a unique situation that, invariably, arises. Robots, are far as I can tell, are not capable of original intelligence, becuase they can only 'think' what is programmed of them to think. When confronted with something that has not passed their makers mind, the robot, then, does not have the ingenuity to discover a possible solution.

In these five industries alone there will be hundreds of millions of jobs disappearing. But many other sectors will also be affected.

Certainly there’s a downside to all this. The more technology we rely on, the more breaking points we’ll have in our lives.

Driverless drones can deliver people. These people can deliver bombs or illicit drugs as easily as pizza.

Robots that can build building can also destroy buildings.

All of this technology could make us fat, dumb, and lazy, and the problems we thought we were solving become far more complicated.

We are not well-equipped culturally and emotionally to have this much technology entering into our lives. There will be backlashes, “destroy the robots” or “damn the driverless car” campaigns with proposed legislation attempting to limit its influence.

At the same time, most of the jobs getting displaced are the low-level, low-skilled labor positions. Our challenge will be to upgrade our workforce to match the labor demand of the coming era. Although it won’t be an easy road ahead it will be one filled with amazing technology and huge potentials as the industries shift.(citation)

Concluding Reflexion-

In these five areas alone, you have made hundreds of millions of fallacies and errors, but there is a limitless capacity for stupidity in the mind of yours.

Certainly there's no end to your bullshit. The more bullshit your spew, the more laughable it becomes.

Technological advances that only you know about, Extending the idea of online classes to the idea that we don't need teachers or professors, You lack of knowledge in every area whose job you proclaim to be made redundant by robots.

All this bullshit could make a man nauseous, ill, or, should he believe this, completely insane, while the bullshit your spew becomes much more magnanimous.

Humans are not equipped, culturally or emotionally, to have this much bullshit entering into our lives. People will laugh at you, sneer at you, and you will go on, like the pathetic would-be seer you are, and pretend to be Cassandra admist the Trojans, and say things like, "And there will be boundless milk and honey, but people will grow idle, fat, and lazy", or "And we will immanentize the eschaton, but, though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved".

At the same time, low level bullshitters cannot compete with one such as you. Our challange will we to find a way to listen to you, for any given amount of time, without bursting into uncontrollable laughter. It won't be easy, but, when we pass your ridiculousness, we all may benefit from learning from your errors and avoiding them.

And his comment in bold was directed towards people like you, who just aren't emotionally and culturally smart enough to process all these changes. Case in point, you're still stuck on "hammers, mills, and steam engines".

That's all well and fine that I am stupid, but you still haven't proved anything at all.